ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2020

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which enabled the charging of late fees under section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge these fees for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion on the same material available during the original assessment. The Tribunal also found that the additions deleted by the CIT(A) on merits were not valid.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings as they were initiated without fresh tangible material, constituting a mere change of opinion by the AO. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue against the CIT(A)'s order on merits became infructuous.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables used by the TPO, finding them not functionally comparable or lacking necessary data. This decision partially allowed the assessee's grounds related to the selection of comparables.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge its initial onus to prove the existence of an international transaction regarding AMP expenses. The Bright Line Test (BLT) used by the TPO was deemed unsustainable, rendering the adjustment invalid.

The Tribunal held that interest is payable on the entire self-assessment tax refunded from the date of payment, as the 10% threshold in Section 244A(1)(a) is not applicable to self-assessment tax. It was also held that even a part of a month constitutes a full month for interest calculation.

The Tribunal held that the sale of software licenses constituted the sale of a copyrighted article, not a copyright right. Therefore, the consideration received was not taxable as royalty under the Act or the DTAA, as the DTAA provisions, being more beneficial, overrode the amended domestic law definition of royalty.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by interpreting the weight/quantity of gold jewellery in the seized documents as monetary sales value. The assessee's declared sales figure tallied with the recorded quantities, making the estimated sales and subsequent addition erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E was not leviable for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant enabling provisions for computation of such fees were introduced on that date. Consequently, the levy of fee and consequent interest was deleted.

The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses paid to an AE, backed by third-party invoices without any mark-up, cannot be benchmarked at Nil. Following decisions of coordinate benches and the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO/TPO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A was restricted to the actual expenditure incurred. Regarding interest under Section 234C, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the interest as the income had not accrued by the due date of advance tax payment due to unforeseen circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, and income tax returns of the lending companies, especially after additional evidence was considered during remand proceedings. The facts were distinguished from relied-upon case laws where such evidence was lacking.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's reply to an RTI query indicated that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not found in the records. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) to ascertain if a satisfaction note was indeed recorded as per law.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A was restricted to the actual expenditure incurred. Regarding interest under Section 234C, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the interest as the income had not accrued by the due date of advance tax payment due to unforeseen circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the dispute being resolved under the Act.

The Tribunal held that late filing fee under Section 234E cannot be levied for defaults occurring before June 1, 2015, as the relevant enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced on that date. Consequently, the fee and any consequential interest were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. Following the Supreme Court's dictum, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits, solely based on the delay. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A was restricted to the actual expenditure incurred. Regarding interest under Section 234C, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the interest as the income had not accrued by the due date of advance tax payment due to unforeseen circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under section 234E for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, the intimations raising such demands were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which enabled the Assessing Officer to compute fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E for processing TDS returns filed before this date.

The ITAT set aside the issue of enhanced interest income to the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide proper evidence. The ground regarding TDS credit was dismissed as it was already granted, and the penalty ground was dismissed as premature.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A was restricted to the actual expenditure incurred. Regarding interest under Section 234C, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the interest as the income had not accrued by the due date of advance tax payment due to unforeseen circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. Following the Supreme Court's dictum, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that since the entire contract amounts were offered to tax, the assessee is allowed to claim the unrecoverable debts as bad debts. For the shuttering expenses, the matter was remanded back to the AO to verify TDS compliance.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that profit on sale/redemption of investments is not taxable in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 528 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision. It also ruled that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies due to the overriding nature of Section 44 and the First Schedule. Other grounds raised by the Revenue were also decided in favour of the assessee based on previous precedents.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A was restricted to the actual expenditure incurred. Regarding interest under Section 234C, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the interest as the income had not accrued by the due date of advance tax payment due to unforeseen circumstances.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that two comparable companies, TCS e-Serve Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd., should be excluded due to their high brand value and significantly higher turnover compared to the assessee. This exclusion brought the assessee's margins within the acceptable +/- 5% range.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the claim for long-term capital loss on write-off of shares was not allowable as there was no transfer of a capital asset. However, it allowed the deduction for lease equalization adjustment, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. Following the Supreme Court's dictum, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to verify the filing of delay condonation applications. If filed, the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate them leniently and then decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not justified for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) making it applicable was effective from that date. Consequently, the late fee and consequential interest were directed to be deleted.